You are currently viewing our community as a guest which gives you limited access. By joining our FREE community you will have access to communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, free and we ask nothing from you in return. So please, Join Canadian Tire Sucks today!

NOTE: If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ and the RULES by clicking the links above. You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

DISCLAIMER: This site is not Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited ("Canadian Tire"). There is no affiliation or endorsement between Canadian Tire and this website.

I only wanted to prove a point...the real you comes out when challenged with facts or common sense. You list meaningless cases that have zero relation to your opinion on cash refunds for defective items and you hope to fool the perusers of this site that you are either knowledgable or of importance. When faced with real challenge, the best you can do is sink to the lowest denominator and resort to name calling. You are not valid, you are not accurate and from what I can tell, you are not even relevant....good bye.

I only wanted to prove a point...the real you comes out when challenged with facts or common sense. You list meaningless cases that have zero relation to your opinion on cash refunds for defective items and you hope to fool the perusers of this site that you are either knowledgable or of importance. When faced with real challenge, the best you can do is sink to the lowest denominator and resort to name calling. You are not valid, you are not accurate and from what I can tell, you are not even relevant....good bye.

So dipshit waste of skin wannabe lawyer what point is that you proved? That you're full of shit and don't know what the fuck you're talking about? Yeah, we all get that. How the hell would you know those examples are irrelevant to CPA ? Did you even check out the cases you fucking retard? You tell me something about those cases then Mr CT douchabag minimum wage cockaroach. Those cases directly involve CPA and were ruled with CPA as test and some as a deciding factor.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

you hope to fool the perusers of this site that you are either knowledgable or of importance.

Really? Did I make a claim that I was an expert on this one? Nope that was you.

Originally Posted by lawguy

you cant find it because it doesn`t exist. as far as i can tell, davidler has a loose interpretation of the words contained in the act and is trying to twist them into a bunch of legal bullshit thinking he is entitled to something. i work in law, in ontario. i have a ton of experience in consumer law.

Those cases cited should be in your alley then dip shit. Oh by the way, you flapped gum and were proven to be a liar on that one.

You called me out on this one, you wanted one example of a court case involving CPA. I gave you two. That's right you got bitch slapped again, now flap more gum and run away. Go sign an organ donor card...watch for falling objects.

So dipshit waste of skin wannabe lawyer what point is that you proved? That you're full of shit and don't know what the fuck you're talking about? Yeah, we all get that. How the hell would you know those examples are irrelevant to CPA ? Did you even check out the cases you fucking retard? You tell me something about those cases then Mr CT douchabag minimum wage cockaroach. Those cases directly involve CPA and were ruled with CPA as test and some as a deciding factor.

Really? Did I make a claim that I was an expert on this one? Nope that was you.

Those cases cited should be in your alley then dip shit. Oh by the way, you flapped gum and were proven to be a liar on that one.

You called me out on this one, you wanted one example of a court case involving CPA. I gave you two. That's right you got bitch slapped again, now flap more gum and run away. Go sign an organ donor card...watch for falling objects.

sorry dude, i have zero time to respond to this kind of garbage. as far as i'm concerned you are typical of a life long complainer who thinks he is above all. foul mouthed, insulting, know it all attitude. i don't know who you are, i don't care who you are, you carry no weight, no credibility and anything of value or intelligence that you have posted on here gets flattened by your inability to think and communicate like a reasonable person in a civilized world.
my guess is this is how you live your life and will never know any better

sorry dude, i have zero time to respond to this kind of garbage. as far as i'm concerned you are typical of a life long complainer who thinks he is above all. foul mouthed, insulting, know it all attitude. i don't know who you are, i don't care who you are, you carry no weight, no credibility and anything of value or intelligence that you have posted on here gets flattened by your inability to think and communicate like a reasonable person in a civilized world.
my guess is this is how you live your life and will never know any better

thanks for playing, but you do not pass go, do not collect $200.00

fail

awww you were proven to be a liar and now your feelings are hurt...go cry about it while you rip off more people at the returns desk. Some one was mean to a dumb minimum wage POS retail woman manager guru in nothing wahhh. Oh no better yet tell owner papa luigi and he'll give you a real job and put you in the garage to make the real money from seniors

I only wanted to prove a point...the real you comes out when challenged with facts or common sense. You list meaningless cases that have zero relation to your opinion on cash refunds for defective items and you hope to fool the perusers of this site that you are either knowledgable or of importance. When faced with real challenge, the best you can do is sink to the lowest denominator and resort to name calling. You are not valid, you are not accurate and from what I can tell, you are not even relevant....good bye.

Where o' where did we see this shit before? lawguy/Ct Me/CT Manager/Retailer douchabags cockaroach
gabagoo losers

Please don’t be offended, but I have to let you know something. I have to admit that, for a while, I was finding you a bit, well … annoying.

I’m sure that nobody in ‘real life’ would ever find you grating or droning, but that’s how it was for me. Reading (well, skimming, really) post after post of the same, unsubstantiated claims.

(It was almost as if you believe that, if you repeated the same old speculations enough times, people would forget that you had no back-up for your claims whatsoever.)

But here’s the good news: you’ll be relieved to know that I now find you highly amusing!!!!

Isn’t that awesome???

I think the tipping point for me was the recent ‘exchange’ exchange.

(Get it?)

Yes, you set out to prove that CT’s policies aren’t in violation of any laws. In particular, that the law doesn’t require a refund for a defective item. (Which it does; did I happen to mention that?)

But here’s what’s so entertaining:

The only thing you managed to find any evidence for at all, is that CT’s policy on exchanges is illegal!
“LOL Hilarious”, as your cohort ‘CT Me’ used to phrase it.

(Posters type ‘LOL’ all the time, but you can be sure I really am!)

Originally Posted by Unregistered

do you think that these large corporations, with a multitude of lawyers in their employ …

Well, now. Here’s a real head-scratcher of a conundrum, don’t you think?

How can it be, that the “multitude of lawyers” failed to find something, that you were able to Google up in just a day or two, with basically no legal training whatsoever?

Beginners luck, perhaps?

Are there just too many of them? Or perhaps too few?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

do you think that these large corporations … don't have their asses covered every which way and sideways? I know that they do.

Talk about an epic fail! Somehow, they clearly don’t have their behinds covered, at least not in this way.

What's spectacularly funny is how you started out saying you “know that they do”, and just a few blundering days later, you proved that they don’t!

This will especially hit them on their precious “Repair Only” policy, which Crappy Tire has invented for notoriously faulty products like the Simonize pressure washers. That’s the policy that says it can’t be returned, even if it’s kaput, right out of the box.

Now that you’ve discovered this non-compliant policy on CT’s, I’m sure you’ll agree they’ll want to have this glaring gap closed ‘toot sweet’, right? Because, as you said:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Smart businesses will try and accommodate their good customers

And, I know you will want to set them straight on this, ASAP.

So. Have you given the CT head office a call? I’m sure if they knew of your dedicated efforts on their behalf, they’d be glad to hear from you.

In fact, maybe they are in need of a good legal researcher, such as yourself (LOL). I bet there’s even an opening or two coming up in their legal staff!

So, when are the “repair only” policy signs coming down? Have they given you an expected roll-out date?

Do you think they’ll feel bad enough over their past wrong-doings to hunt down that elderly couple, and give them a replacement pressure washer, rather than make them wait for the brand-new-but-dead-out-of-the-box unit to get fixed?

In the meantime, I’m still waiting for your back-up material on that claim that there are lots of web sites on your "no law requiring refunds" theory. Because I sure can't find them.

Oh, and the list of sites from other retailers that have “some variation" of CT’s “If a product is defective, the manufacturer’s warranty will apply” statements. Because I sure can’t find that, either.

And, of course, don't forget to get back to us on CT's valiant efforts to become fully compliant (at least with the exchange issue), and on your new job prospects!

There was a question regarding whether anyone has "successfully won" (as opposed to "unsuccessfully won"? or "successfully lost"?) a decision in court using my interpretation of CPA or Sale of Goods acts.

First of all, I strongly suggest you NOT try to win a court case based the interpretation of anyone posting on this forum, including my own (such as my post #43 on the Sale of Goods Act thread).

However, I humbly suggest you might attempt it based on the interpretation of the consumer law experts quoted in my post #36 on that same thread:

I've seen some ranting and raving before, but this DavidLer joker takes the cake. "raving lunatic" comes to mind. I've seen better behavior from my three year old.
Just for the record, it was my posting that referenced other retailers return policies and I am not Ctme or law guy for that matter....why is it that when faced with facts, you rant and rave all the more. As I've said, you are not relevant or accurate in your one line interpretations. You can try and bully your points across all you want....you just prove your social misfit status and anger management issues.

Here you go sport, although I'm quite sure you have already read the return policies of these retailers....they are all online

Walmart....."our goal is to satisfy customers by exchange, refund or repair (if possible)

Home Hardware....."Each item is guaranteed in accordance with the terms of any specific manufacturer' warranty. Retain all Warranties in case of future adjustment. If your qualifying product Proves defective within 1 year of purchase, Your home dealer will replace it With a new one"

Home Depot...."The home depot reserves the right To limit or refuse to accept The return of certain merchandise at any time and for any reason". Also on their site "Gasoline powered equipment may be returned within 30 days of purchase with a valid receipt. After 30 days, the item may be sent out for repair at the owner's expense unless covered by warranty"

Lowes......."You may return it for refund or exchange, within our current return policy guidelines". They then list guidelines about time frames and manufacturers warranty, varied depending on the item.

I then called the BBB in London, Ont. and asked if a retailer can refuse to refund me for an item that is defective, the day I bought it.....there answer....."if that's their policy". I asked for clarification...."returns are a privilege businesses offer to attract and retain customers....they are not legally obligated to offer anything"

Not sure if that is enough for you...but then again, you already knew the answer, you just refuse to accept it.